[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1298061395.23343.975.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:36:35 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Dominique Toupin <dominique.toupin@...csson.com>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"2nddept-manager@....hitachi.co.jp"
<2nddept-manager@....hitachi.co.jp>
Subject: RE: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] ftrace: Use -mfentry when supported (this is
for x86_64 right now)
On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 15:10 -0500, Dominique Toupin wrote:
> My understanding is stop_machine will stop all processors for many ms.
s/ms/us/
> Even if most of our systems are not hard real-time they are soft real-time and stopping all cores for a few ms is not allowed.
> We can stop a few threads while we are jump patching but all processors is too much for us.
I think I could hit a single ms if we enable full function tracing which
disables ~22,000 functions in one shot. But if you enable full function
tracing, the kernel can slow down quite drastically, and that would even
be more problematic than a single ms hic-up. As hackbench showed a %150
slowdown when function tracer was running.
Now the last measurements I took was a few years ago and it was on a 4
CPU box. Perhaps stop_machine() may be a bit more expensive on a 1024
CPU box.
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists